Register a media-processing job by source ID and title; repeated submissions with the same source ID are idempotent and do not create duplicates.
Register a job. Idempotent per source_id: repeating the call never creates duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| created | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable scoping detail: idempotency is keyed on source_id and repeats never duplicate. It does not say what a duplicate call actually returns (existing job? new response?), which is the main residual gap; safety profile is otherwise covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the key behavioral constraint front-loaded right after the purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 2-param mutation tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the duplicate-call response and the 'title' parameter unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain source_id's role as the idempotency key, which is genuinely useful, but 'title' is never described and no format expectations are given for either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Register a job'), which is distinguishable from siblings like get_job_status and retry_job. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to submit versus retry_job or check status first, and no preconditions stated. The only implied usage is 'call this to create a job', which is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.